Philosophy Of Transgenderism: Hume’s Law

Introduction to the Argument
The is-ought dichotomy, this is a logical distinction more over a logical absolute that is well understood in Philosophy & Logic, but surprisingly not well known. Now this distinction is known in moral Philosophy as Hume’s law. Hume’s law shows use the dichotomy of what is the case from what Ought be the case and how this cannot be bridged. Now I feel I need explain this because so many fall victim to these bolstering claims of (what is the case) therefore (Ought be the case), and by this I of course mean that of Transgendered and even homosexuality.

The Argument

Now fistly we need to understand what an Ought even is. An Ought as its understood in logic is normative. Normative statements are statements of Ought’s that can either be expressed through statements of value or moral maxims. But as we’re going to learn Ought’s, or normative claims as they’re called are not descriptive they do not describe a thing nor can one derive from it. Well to further explain lets use an analogy. Let’s explain something that is the case, take the statement [this is a tree]. Now even though we may make the claim that [this is a tree], how can we derive an Ought from it? Remember Ought’s are not the thing itself, Ought’s are Normative. But if I say: “Hey they Ought build a house over by that tree” or “I Ought not climb that tree I might get hurt”, both said statements are normative in the sense that they express some type of value; one as a consequence of not getting hurt, and the other as a possibility of a desired outcome. But none of these give meaning to the description. Take away the Ought that I ought do this or should do that and the description of the thing tree still is what it is, its meaning hasn’t changed at all. This is what we mean by the [Is-Ought distinction] and why it’s even a distinction. I cannot speak of an Ought within the same meaning as a things description nor can I derive an ought from it.

Now lets look at an argument maybe we’re all abit more familiar with, X is unnatural therefore its wrong. Ok so we have a statement of naturalism which is a statement of (what is the case) and then we have a statement of morality “something being right or wrong” which is a statement of (what Ought be the case). Now to say something is therefore it Ought be, is “as we’ve demonstrated” a fallacious claim. Remember an ought cannot be within a things description. Again simply making a statement of (what is the case) says nothing of an Ought. In the same sense the natural or unnaturalness of something is a statement of what is the case not what Ought be the case, therefore one cannot use the argument “X is unnatural therefore is wrong”, because to derive a moral ought from a descriptive claim “especially when we use the term natural” is absurd as to say disease is natural therefore its right and medicine is unnatural therefore its wrong, this is again absurd. Moral ought’s cannot be a consequence of only non-moral premises. This why “Hume’s law” exists and why it is so revered in Philosophy today.

Conclusion

Now even though you may say that this is a simple distinction. Still I see so many ppl within the LGBT community get so hung up on this argument Ohh you Ought be a certain way because you are a certain way or what you’re doing is unnatural. These arguments I’ve seen down right frustrate ppl, and I’ve even seen it embarrass ppl. But in truth it’s a bad argument it’s illogical full stop. Once you can understand Hume’s law then this argument is cake to refute. But for those of you “especially within the LGBT community who may not be aware of Hume and his ideals, then you ought read him for the reasons I just described. cheese! (^

- pn

POT

January 3, 2012

Leave a comment

Philosophy Of Transgenderism: Heyer’s Delusion

Introduction

I came across a website by a person named Walt Heyer and found some of the content quite interesting. Ah so on his blog he lists some very farfetched assumptions, trying to advocate that Transgender individuals are somehow delusional? Now I’ve dealt with these kinds of arguments in the past. These arguments, very common are typical of an ad lapidem fallacy, as they assert a things absurdity, usually without giving justification for it. But I think this is good as it affords me the opportunity to refute such erroneous assumptions and prove that these types of arguments hold no weight. So here we go. Ok so he provides a list of 4 examples of the term Delusion as he x-references the definition; contrasting it from different websites.

The Argument

“ Delusional Disorder—Co-existing with gender identity disorders?

What is a delusional disorder? I did some research and found the following:

#1. Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the delusional belief.

#2. Themes of delusions can include but not limited to, patient believes that he has some unrecognized “special identity” and is being cheated or somehow mistreated.

#3. The delusion may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes.

#4. Delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality the delusional situations are either not true or are highly exaggerated.

All 4 of the above conditions exist in the transgender delusion.”

My Rebuttal

Wow! I think the left side of my brain just laughed. ha So Heyer wants to assert that Transgenderism is delusional, as he takes the definition of Delusion and with it tries to fit it in with the concept of Transgenderism. Now these supposed explanations that he references seem to fall in line with his assertions. But what we’re going to do is go through and debunk all of them, as none of them actually validate or even agree with his position!

#1. Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the delusional belief.

Now it should be noted that he commits a concrete fallacy, which is a fallacy of ambiguity by treating a term as concrete when its more obscure. Because its no argument among philosophers and contemporary psychologist that the term “delusion” is not clearly defined. Ah but he does say that Delusions are held to be irrational, so for the sake of argument I do agree with this definition, but just how Transgenderism fits into this description shows a lacking of a basic understanding of Epistemology.

Now before we get into this allow me to clarify afew things. His category mistake in his assumption that Transgenderism is delusional is that a delusion is a description of what Is the case NOT what Ought be the case. In Philosophy this is known as the Is-Ought distinction.

On the one hand we have descriptive statements, a statement of something about reality and normative statements about how things ought to be. Ah it was Hume who presented the problem of how we derive normative statements from descriptive statements, mainly in terms of morality. But in Heyer’s assumption this is where the fault line lies. We can see in this light that a Transsexual does not hold a false belief about reality, because the belief itself doesn’t affirm how things are, but how things Ought to be. This distinction is really what sets apart Transgenderism from a delusional belief.

A delusion however irrational is a belief about reality. Take Parasitosis the delusional belief that the person is somehow infested with parasites, like bugs crawling all around their body. Or take a Nihilistic delusion were a person believes that either parts of their body or even the world has been somehow destroyed or no longer exists. So the major tenant of a delusion is that it always makes the claim that something is the case, ha no matter the delusion. However Transgenderism does not fit into this spectrum as the belief is normative, in that it pursues a possibility NOT a presupposition of an assumption about reality. This is not to say that Descriptive IS statements are necessarily irrational, but merely to show the distinction between Transgenderism and a delusional belief, and the differences in their modus operandi.

Now to say that delusions are simply affirmative descriptions of reality, doesn’t tell us why there irrational. After all descriptive statements could just as well be coherent. It should be noted that when I speak of delusions and there descriptions I’m not saying it as a description of reality but rather a descriptive presentation of reality. Presentation is the mental conception of the content of an idea, such as I conceive of a dragon or a unicorn, these are mental presentations however these concepts are not irrational because I’m not affirming that they exist. A delusion on the other hand would affirm that descriptive presentations do exist. So with that lets move on.

#2. Themes of delusions can include but not limited to, patient believes that he has some unrecognized “special identity” and is being cheated or somehow mistreated.

Ok here he lists a characteristic of a delusion as a person having a special identity. Now whats funny about this, is that if we go to the actual source this is what the original excerpt says.

“Grandiose type (patient believes that he has some great but unrecognized talent or insight, a special identity, knowledge, power, self-worth, or special relationship with someone famous or with God); jealous type (patient believes his partner has been unfaithful); persecutory type (patient believes he is being cheated, spied on, drugged, followed, slandered, or somehow mistreated.”

Now if you haven’t already noticed this definition has NOTHING to do with Transgenderism! What the statement is actually referring to is Grandiosity or what’s commonly referred to as Delusions of Grandeur, so the term [special identity] DOESN’T mean [self identity]. What it means a person who exhibits characteristics of narcissism; having an over exaggeration of their own prominence, self-worth, and abilities.

Walt seriously? This is what we call [quote mining], it’s a dishonest sleazy form of rhetoric. Its quite obvious you mendaciously took this definition completely out of context, in hopes that it would pass as a valid premise to support your own faulty idiotic assumptions. Like you’re seriously just flat our lieing here.

#3. The delusion may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes.

“Delusional disorder refers to a condition associated with one or more nonbizarre delusions of thinking—such as expressing beliefs that occur in real life such as being poisoned, being stalked, being loved or deceived, or having an illness, provided no other symptoms of schizophrenia are exhibited.

Delusions may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes. Mood episodes are relatively brief compared with the total duration of the delusional periods. Also, these delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse.”

Once again we have to go to the source and look at what the statement is actually referring to. What the statement is referring to are taxonomies or classifications of what’s known as bizarre and non-bizarre delusions. As what’s necessary of any delusion the belief itself makes a positive assertion about reality. But we still group these irrational beliefs into two distinct categories what’s plausible and what’s incoherent. It just differentiates between someone who’s Paranoid where a person believes that they’re somehow in danger, than from someone who believes that there from the planet Kpax. One is at least plausible and the other is just plain incoherent.

“ah Kpax that was a good movie by the way” (^

But to say that Transgenderism fits into this concept, begs the question as to even try to place Transgenderism into this classification one must first make the assumption that Transgenderism is even a delusion!

#4. Delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality the delusional situations are either not true or are highly exaggerated.

Ok this goes right back to our first definition in which Heyer tries to imply that Delusions are associative with Transgender beliefs. But we already touched on the fact that Transgenderism doesn’t view events as an immediate perception of experience, as Transgenderism does not affirm what is the case but rather what ought be the case.

Closing remarks

Heyer this was at best a laughable attempt at trying to advocate your own bigoted assertions, and push them onto others. And you’ve made several of these assertions on your website and blogs that contains faulty and misleading information “such as this” that I’m left with no other alternative than to call you down right dishonest.

What may be good of you to think about, is that if dishonesty is your crutch then what do you stand for? -pn

POT

January 3, 2012

Leave a comment

Philosophy of Transgenderism: You’re a duck-duck-goose?

Introduction

“Changing your gender, well that’s like a person wanting to be a duck!”

Yes this is actually an objection, ha nah a common objection! ah Now why is this stupid? Well for two reasons: 1) it’s a false analogy as it makes a weak comparison between two unlike things and 2) in terms of causality.. it’s not even the same God damn thing! I mean we have one cause that is effecient and the other spontanious? But we’ll just leave it at that for now. So I can’t believe I’m actually going to give a defense of this, I mean come on as if it even needs defending, but I guess we’ll give it a go.

The argument

So firstly lets demonstrate why it’s a false analogy and what a false analogy even is. A false analogy is a misleading often superficial weak comparison that is made between two or more subjects; in stating they’re identical in some respect. So basically false analogy would assert that since a similarity exists in some respect then it is therefore also similar in some other further respect, but that further respect is shown to be dissimilar. Lets format this for a second.

If A and B are alike

And A has the property of P

Then B is also like P

Ok don’t get confused, I’ll explain this! A false analogy is committed here when we take the initial premise A and B, and show whether or not they actually share a strong similarity with the conclusion P. Now this actually may confuse you alittle, but another thing about an analogy is that its never true nor false, it’s only strong or weak. An analogy can’t show anything to be true or false, it only states the similarities between shared abstractions. Now when ppl use what’s known as an argument from analogy “which is common”, please realize they’re only stating the [likely hood of the conclusion]. But the likely hood of the conclusion depends on how strong the similarities are between both the conclusion and the premises. But an analogy is weak or false because of the dissimilarities between the conclusion and the premises, and this is where we invoke the fallacy “false analogy”. But the fact that it’s called a false analogy is abit misleading, that’s why the term “weak analogy” is sometimes used. The reason for this is because an analogy can essentially show anything to have some kind of shared-abstract similarity, no matter how unlike they are.

Take the following statement,

1) Usain Bolt is like a Ferrari, he goes really fast.

So the statement says that both Usain Bolt (A) and the Ferrari (B) share a common property or quality of being fast (P), in which (P) is the similarity. However the conclusion that (P) may share certain similarities is weak as the dissimilarities are heir apparent, as (P) is not the same in respect to what both (A) and (B) are. Yes both Usain Bolt and a Ferrari are fast, but it would be abit farfetched to say that Usain is as fast as a Ferrari. So even though there may be some similarities that can be drawn, the analogy is simply too weak to form a strong argument to support the conclusion.

Now let’s go back and look at the former argument, I gave at the beginning of the introduction,

2) Changing your gender, well that’s like a person wanting to be a duck!

Now this analogy is arguing from an absurdity as its stating that a causal change (A) through ones gender (B) is as absurd or the same as validating a further casual change (P), wanting to be a duck. Now the likely hood of the conclusion (P) is what the analogy is trying to demonstrate is the absurdity. But in terms of (P) can we say the same of (P) in respects to what both (A) and (B) are? NO! Because (P) is not the same type of casual change that both (A) and (B) purport. As I’ve said before Transgenderism or changing ones gender requires that an efficient cause be present, which is what I went over in my last post.cBut to give a quick refresher, an efficient cause states two things: 1) the subject of the effect and 2) the principle of the effect. All causes must incorporate some form of principle to produce an effect, the means by which something is created. The subject of the effect is stating the agent cause, the person that which first initiated the change. I believe I used an example of “The art of making a table” and “the artisan”. But what’s important here is can we say that (P) is the same type of casual change that’s within both (A) and (B), because if not then (P) is therefore dissimilar and the analogy is thus false! How ever one might try to draw the similarities between changing into a duck and changing ones gender, the analogy still fails as it is not consistent with an efficient cause because “changing into a duck ha” unlike changing ones gender does not follow a principle to that effect, which an efficient cause clearly states is needed. Conclusion

Conclusion

So the statement is a false analogy given that the causalities stated are in fact dissimilar, in which it’s trying to assert are similar. Just like with the example of Usain Bolt and the Ferrari, the conclusion does not fit with the premises and is therefore fallacious. But if you want to just give a quick response to this, without invoking the fallacy. Just state an efficient cause and ask is the lateral also efficient? If not then it’s [obviously] not the same god damn thing! But anyways, I don’t think this argument was ever meant to be reasonable or even persuasive, but rather just condescending. I would say though that the only thing that I found devastating about this argument is that it’s a complete waste of my afternoon.

- pn

POT

January 3, 2012

Leave a comment

Philosophy Of Transgenderism: Birth of Plurality

Introduction to the argument

The argument I’m going to present “originally by John Stewart Mill”, is a Metaphysical heuristic principle known as Plurality of Causes. Plurality of causes challenges the notion that while causes are relational to their effects, effects however are not necessarily relational to their causes. And for clarity I’ll provide a brief definition. Plurality of Causes: though the same cause must have the same effect, the same effect however need not have the same cause. Now with this I’ll answer two things what this is saying of course and if I’m Transgendered why do I need to know this?Ah firstly to explain what this means, its better if I use an analogy. Let’s take an effect of something such as Death and something causing that effect or causing it to die. Like if I jumped off of a bridge, drowned in a lake, or had Cancer. All of these causes can produce the effect of something dying. However the effect of something dyeing can be attributed to a multiplicity of causes. And this is really what the distinction is saying; in terms of Death “however it comes about” it cannot simply be attributed to a singular cause. So the cause may bring about the effect, but the effect is not necessary of its cause.Now that we have a working understanding of this principle, the next question could be how does it address Transgenderism? Now I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve heard the statement or you may have heard the statement, “Because you weren’t born a certain way or because you weren’t conceived of a certain way, then what you’re doing is wrong or unnatural.” I’ve heard this argument come up several times in private and public discourse and it comes in various forms. Now to some it may seem convincing, but it’s far from being rational.

But let’s take the statement by itself. Like what is the statement saying? Well firstly it’s arguing a causal relation of a cause and its effect. X is inconsistent or immoral because you weren’t born that way. Or in other words, X is inconsistent or immoral because that which is effected wasn’t caused a certain way. Now the fallaciousness of this argument any Philosophy 101 student could point out as by dismissing or affirming a thing by stating its origins commits a Genetic fallacy. But that’s a different argument all together. What we’re arguing is the assumption that certain effects are immutable and necessarily relational to its cause. Immutable meaning that it doesn’t change and necessary of its cause as it argues that effects themselves are somehow necessary of a singular cause and cannot be caused any other way.

Problems with the argument

Now given the heuristic principle can we say this argument is reasonable? No, because simply stating a cause and effect relationship does not imply that the effect is necessary of its cause. We have to point out the fallacious assumption being made here when it’s asserted that the effect of something is inconsistent or not acceptable, because it wasn’t caused a certain way, this is fallacious argument.

Since effects can again have a multiplicity of causes then it’s perfectly rational to state a different kind of cause that effect’s a thing, such as Death or even a person’s Gender. In terms of a person’s Gender it’s still wrong to make the assumption that what effects someone’s Gender can only be caused a certain way; i.e. birth, conception or prenatal development.

Now I’m not done. I mean simply pointing out the fallacious assumption in stating a necessary cause within a casual relation does refute the argument. However if I’m to state a multiplicity of causes within an effect such as gender, I still should give an account of the kind of cause that it is. Now Aristotle stated four kinds of causes, the one we will be discussing here is an efficient cause. The efficient cause, states the agent cause and the principle that to which brings something about.

Remember an efficient cause is stating two things here, the producer of an effect that follows a principle that guides its creation. As for one to be a producer of something one must follow a principle that brings about that effect “such as the art of making a table” and the agent cause, the initiator of the change which first started it. “the artisan”.

Now in terms of Transgenderism it follows this concept to the letter. When we look at Transgenderism the efficient cause is already stated, we have the producer of an effect that follows a principle that guides its creation “such as transitioning” and the agent cause, the initiator of the change which first started it. “The Transsexual”.

Conclusion

So when we look at the argument again, X is inconsistent or immoral because you weren’t born a certain way or because you weren’t conceived of a certain way, really becomes laughably absurd as all one must do is simply point out a Plurality or multiplicity of causes that produces an effect which irrefutably demonstrates the contradiction in asserting that effects necessitate a singular cause.

Ok. And also let’s not forget the cause itself I used an efficient or agent cause; which states two underlying principles the producer of an effect, which I forgot to mention is similar to the Praxis “which I talked about in a previous video” ah which is the principle or idea that’s actualized into existence and the agent cause that which first initiates the change.

So in light of these distinctions, its clear that Transgenderism can neither be said to be inconsistent with causality, nor is the assumption of a necessary causal relation “such as birth”,  invalidate any notion of Transgenderism.

As they say in tennis, point match, – pn

POT

January 3, 2012

Leave a comment